The State Disability Plan 2002-2012
In its original formulation the State Disability Plan reflected the neoliberal ideology in its attempt to promote social inclusion for people with severe physical disabilities.
Key elements of this plan include:
Advertisement
This State Disability Plan outlines a new approach to disability that is based on fundamental principles of human rights and social justice (the way forward).The Principle of Dignity and Self-Determination (choice) is about respecting and valuing the knowledge, abilities and experiences that people .0with a disability possess, supporting them to make choices about their lives, and enabling each person to live the life they want to live (guiding principles).The Victorian Government wants disability supports to focus on supporting people with a disability in flexible ways, based on their individual needs, so that each person strategies that it puts into place. This will ensure that real progress is made towards achieving the Government's vision over the next ten years (next steps).
However, it is my experience that the State Disability Plan has had little positive effect upon the way support services are delivered for people with severe physical disabilities. Indeed, the practical implementation of the theoretical principles outlined in the State Disability Plan has in not a few cases caused confusion and may even have developed new forms of exclusion in these support services for those being served, their families and support workers. Considerable anxiety and frustration arises in everyday life when such support services are needed.
Social Dilemmas
In my personal reflection, I feel there is a need to introduce a political concept of "social dilemma" into public policy discussion. This has been expanded in a previous raised OLO article.
In a nutshell, Leon Felkins puts the dilemma like this:
Specifically, if government is invoked to solve the social dilemma, then government, being a public good itself, provides a new social dilemma possibly much worse than the original!
Advertisement
This outlines the theoretical problem we need to reflect upon when formal disability policy is developed by service providers who may have loads of good will to say what should be done but can not deliver on what they promise by what can be done with the resources at hand. This is furthered by governments attempting to cover up such dilemmas in disability policy, by excusing goverment office bearers from responsibility by appealing to one over-riding (social dilemma) which then leads to the creations of further dilemmas for those to be served which makes a situation far worse than what was previously experienced.
The "overriding" dilemma that has been created to excuse government from its responsibility is constructed in this way: how does government provide for the necessary increase in service provision when it is committed to an overall decrease in public support for social services?
A pragmatic approach would dodge such problems by insisting that governments need to focus upon providing a straight forward approach to social policy. The recent government approach to reform is to an overall reduction in size, which cannot decrease but only increase the dilemmas that arise in social policy.
This confusion can be identified again and again in the political explanations that are put forward.
Is there a possibility to attain policy that is based on rights and fairness? Victoria's disability sector now seems bent on creating one social dilemma after another. For example, the original statements which were unrealistic to begin with are regularly invoked by disability support service providers, who cast further doubt upon the state disability plan and how that relates to individual support, and so discussion about the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) simply confirms the unrealistic appeal to a set of neoliberal policies which h.ave already been shown to be out-of-step with real daily needs of severely disabled people. This begins me to the Victorian Government's latest edict.
The disability plan 2013-2016
Here is part of an email sent out by The Hon Mary Wooldridge MP, 10 November 2011.
Now is an exciting time to be engaged in disability policy. The Victorian Government continues to do everything we can to drive the implementation of the…NDIS. The State Disability Plan will assist us in outlining a vision for reforming disability support and laying the foundations for an effective transition to a NDIS.
As a passionate disability advocate I would like to pose some critical questions. My concern is also about a practical and realisable theory in disability policy that reckons with the dynamic need for practical assistance with disability services. For example, bureaucracies can too easily generate fanciful justifications for innovations with their minimal budget. It seems that because of the many needs that have to be met with minimal resources a situation is created in which innovative but marginal projects are given priority.
This extract is from a current article,'Disability expectations: Investing in a better life, a stronger Australia' is shocking in what it reveals
Almost one in two people with a disability in Australia live in or near poverty (45%). This is more than 2.5 times the rate of poverty experienced in the general population and more than double the OECD average of 22%. The OECD average for relative poverty risk is approximately 1.6, which indicates that people with a disability tend to have a poverty risk about 1.6 times higher than people without a disability. Australia is by far the worst performer on this indicator, ranking 27th out of 27 OECD countries, with a relative poverty risk of 2.7.
Currently, there seems to be the vibe that everything related to disability is on the improve. It may well be that inclusion seems to be improving for those with milder disabilities but this cannot be said for the rest of the disabled population in Australia. In reality it is not so and in this article I have tried to indicate why it cannot be on the improve as long of an overall dilemma is created by claiming to increase social welfare provision when social services are being cut. In other words, this alleged improvement may only indicate that the problem in disability service provision is deepening rather than otherwise.
As I have previously stated where I quote the work of Jenny Cooper,
[when we claim to succeed as a nation and]continue to stay in denial about who we are .... Disability is a part of what we are. Inclusion would acknowledge that. Destiny may one day lead us there. Or there's always revolution!
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
3 posts so far.